Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    October 18, 2012 4:30pm-5:00pm PDT

4:30 pm
make but probably was made by somebody else, was the set of drawings as they are in front of us are unacceptable. i would expect from my perspective for that meeting on november 8 there is indeed a set of drawings which meets the minimum requirements of what this commission needs to have. >> maybe staff can [speaker not understood] the project sponsor. >> well informed, dismissing or he already tried to communicate about those things and i think we have now the time to have a proper set of drawings. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item to november 8, the public hearing will remain open. staff will work with project sponsor to secure an acceptable set of plans. on that motion, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner borden a >> aye. >> commissioner hillis? >> aye a. commissioner moore >> aye >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong?
4:31 pm
>> aye. >> thank you, commissioners, this item is continued to november 8. commissioners you are now on item number 15, case no. 2012. 09 10 d 2055 to 2057 greenberg street. -- green street. >> we'll take a three
4:32 pm
biological break. >> the commission is taking a three-minute recess. thank you. >>please stand by; meeting in recess
4:33 pm
4:34 pm
4:35 pm
4:36 pm
4:37 pm
4:38 pm
4:39 pm
4:40 pm
4:41 pm
4:42 pm
>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sari i [speaker not understood] of department staff. [background noise] >> at the fourth floor and not be visible from the street. it is setback between four feet and 8 feet from the dr requester's property and goes two light rails beyond the requirement the residential design guidelines. the residential design team has reviewed the proposal and not found any exceptional or ordinary circumstances.
4:43 pm
the department recommends that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. thank you and i'm available for questions. >> the first dr requester. whenever you're ready. sorry. thanks for hearing the case. my name is christina of 2949 green street. i'm also representing 27 47 and 20 45 green street. we have our own statements to present as well although they aren't here at the moment. we have owned our home for 18
4:44 pm
years and never sought a protest or complaint but now are compelled to do so because the proposed project will make our home unlivable. this presentation by the planning department [speaker not understood] who are your colleagues, the people you rely on for information and the intention therefore is to maximize the accuracy of the information we present. we have three points to make. the first is that [speaker not understood] and the neighborses are excessive and not in keeping with the intent of the rdg and the planning code. second that the sponsor has a history of code violationses and a pattern of exhibiting disregard for city regulations and neighbors residents safety and third the sponsors rejected a proposed compromise that would [speaker not understood] minimal impact on the neighbors. i'm on page 2000. now. for the current construction ongoing at the address, the original permit was applied for in 2003 to expand the garage and fill in two lightwells to enable an elevator to reach the second condo. it is now nine years later. the project still continues. if this permit is granted
4:45 pm
construction would go on into 2013 and given the history of the sponsor's delay possibly beyond. the excessive length of the project is evidenced by the over 25 open permits on file that you will see in the appendix like this to the presentation i've handed out. this number of permits has resulted in an unenforceable situation. every time i call planning or building from the senior inspectors on down, i get the same response which is that no one can figure out what is going on which creates a situation where violations occur and [speaker not understood]. the burden of construction is further evidenced by the fact three neighbors filed two discretionary reviews one appeals construction began at the result of the last dr hearing modification $to the construction effort that the project has resulted in one round of light reduction already to the units in our building. can you turn the page? with respect to the additional permit on the table now our
4:46 pm
building has a shotgun style condo configuration where all the bedrooms line up along the side of the building where the sponsor intends to build her structure and the windows that face her property are the only source of light into these bedrooms. two of those three units are occupied by families are children's bedrooms are impacted as you know children play in their rooms all day long, they are not just used for sleeping. the most severely impacted room is my two-year old son's bedroom which will be shared in a madther of weeks by our new baby. this bedroom has only one window and no other options for outside light. the second bedroom affected is by my daughter and both windows are impacted. when the sponsor presents you will see a study contracted by her showing minimal impact on visible sky which is misleading because business codes don't focus on shared visible sky. they focus on [speaker not understood] levels and daylight factors which is the amount of natural light coming into the room. said another way, if you're in a dark hole, you can look up
4:47 pm
and see the sky, but the hole that you're in is still dark. it also -- the study also fails to note the impact on extension on windows 3, 4 and 5 and please keep in mind that construction will extend 20 feet back and 10-1/2 feet high blocking the angle of light coming into these windows. i would ask you to view the actual photos which i'll show you now which are more representative than the sponsor's drawings. if you look on page 4 the first photos of the bedroom most significantly impacted. the light is available by this one window and because of the height of our house it is not a closed lightwell at the moment. the light that comes in through this opening is critical to the habitability of the bedroom. if you look at the next page, page 5, of their own volition sponsor put up a wall to show us the light impact of the new structure. you can see on the right side that the room is completely darkened by the structure. she subsequently moved it back four feet, but extend it had 10 feet further back on her roof,
4:48 pm
which blocks the light -- the direction of the light entering the room. if you can imagine from the corner of the window, a 10-1/2 foot tall of wood directly wall of wood directly outside the window. light comes in from beyond that wall and cannot reach the room when the wall [speaker not understood]. if you look at page 6, i've taken what the sponsor's drawings which i believe they're about to present to illustrate again why the [speaker not understood] is irrelevant and the light impacts. on the west side you see the angle of the light coming in today is roughly 40 degrees. if you're standing -- the vertex of the angle if you were standing at my son's bedroom window looking out which nobody really stands at the window and looks out. but in any case, at that point you're getting a 40 degree span of light. and with the new wall and building [inaudible] it will be 12 degree stand. if you turn the page -- >> i'm sorry, your time -- >> yes, time is up.
4:49 pm
oh, okay. >> you're going to get a chance for rebuttal, though. i do? >> yes. maybe we can do the last two or three. thanks. >> speakers in favor of the dr requester. i have letters that your office and staff [speaker not understood]. >> they can't be read at this point but you can submit them. [inaudible]. >> okay. if there are no speakers in support of the dr then we're going to go to the project sponsor. >> we've only had one dr. thank you, my name is david [speaker not understood], speaking on behalf of the project sponsors [speaker not understood] and her daughter. i would like to focus my
4:50 pm
comments relevant to the planning code as opposed to other issues of permit and life-style and other things which can be resolved through other avenues hopefully. there are really two issues i'd like to bring to your attention and address. one is an issue of process and one is of merit. so, i'm putting up here a timeline of the project because it is a little bit confusing. whether the normal process of the pre-application almost a year ago, 10 months ago, though photos of the requester meeting with project sponsor, pre-application occur, no objections were stated.
4:51 pm
i'll go through these quickly. and then there is even further discussion going on where on may 24 the requester states in her e-mail towards the end we will pursue our objections when the notices from the city are sent. so, it was a little bit difficult to fully satisfy the request when it was always we felt sort of an intention to file a discretionary review. now, then -- this is in your packet on june 28th dated june 28th. the project that was sent out -- it is difficult to see, actually had an enclosed lightwell, the matching lightwell approved by the planning department. this is the original dr to which the requester has objected on june 28th, i believe an objection is in your packetful and you see there is completely enclosed lightwell. as alluded to, there were
4:52 pm
ongoing discussions based on those discussions we had an understanding that if we more than triple the lightwell to pull the entire project back from the requester's house that would be acceptable and the sponsors paid additional money for new filing only obviously design revisions and a second dr was sent out or second notify if i indication, sorry, was sent out in late july with a 15-day period. the process issue i guess that i'm confused about is that the second request -- so, the proposal that is actually in your packet that we're being asked to mitigate has never had an objection filed against it. the objection was filed against an original -- an earlier design. and we obviously happily readily agree to modify that earlier design to reflect what you have in your packets, which is this more than tripling of the lightwell slot. then the second point, you have
4:53 pm
it in your packet so i'll only touch on it very quickly in respect for your time, is that obviously we live in a city -- i'm a residential architect myself. you've seen this. things are dense. people have to get along. there are guidelines that say matching lightwells. everyone has a right to talk and address their concerns. and i think what we're trying to impress upon you, hopefully, is the sponsor had every reasonable effort in context of a dense city to respect the guidelines, work with the neighbors, and even a we've done to the sponsor commissioning a study that shows the subject window that the dr requester is on the third floor of this building. that the effect is in the concept of the city is truly minimal. about a 1% reduction in visible sky which although maybe you don't think about visible sky, it does [speaker not
4:54 pm
understood] things like lumens and so forth entering a room. truly minimal effect. we more than tripled the original lightwell if you take into account the building math removed from that side of the house, the residential architect and the sponsors if we haven't met the guidelines, i'm not sure what they are. and further directions would be welcome from the commission. we hope that you will deny the requester's request for discretionary review. thank you. >> okay. speakers in favor of the project sponsor. you have three minutes. thank you. you can just leave it there. thank you, commissioners, for hearing this case. i have lived in san francisco all my life. i grew up in that building, been there for many, many years, and we've never had any
4:55 pm
problems with any neighbors until her neighbor downstairs from her who has now moved did the discretionary review on my first project when i wanted to expand the garage so we could get parking off the street. and we closed in the two lightwells. and put in an elevator. that neighbor happened to have many words with this neighbor, so, they were always at it. anyway, now i'm here. the other neighbor moved. she has had the whole 40 feet from the back of the fourth
4:56 pm
floor private over there, all the way over. in fact, her bathroom windows, we wanted to cover them if you see in the thing because you can look right in. but anyway, that's their problem. they've had that privacy all the time. no one has been on that fourth floor since my father passed away. and now we would just like to make one more room so there's more room available so -- the flats were originally built as low-story and one flat and then a second flat and a penthouse. and those two areas, the penthouse and the lower stories were really made for maids quarters is what they were. and, so, therefore we want to have more families live in the city. so, we want to put more bedrooms.
4:57 pm
so, by expanding that 120 feet, whatever it is on the top floor, we would have one more bedroom so that that top unit will have two bedrooms on the top -- on the main floor, on the third floor, and two bedrooms on the fourth floor. as you can see from the drawings, the code says that you can build right to -- thats was the first plan that the architect and the structural engineer said that we should be able to do, could do. well, we were very nice and went to them and said, well, we will move it back four feet at the very beginning of that area and move it all the way back to eight feet. so, all that light come into that window of her -- do you see that?
4:58 pm
is that explained correctly to you? >> thank you. your time is up and we have [speaker not understood] pardon? >> your time is up and we have all the material in front of us here. appreciate it. all right. >> okay. any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? my name is alice kelly and my daughter. i'm helping her with the project. so i have a couple of rebuttal item. number one is my parents enlarged the garage and built an elevator because my mom wanted to stay in her building. and then my dad got sick and passed away in [speaker not understood]. so, that caused the project to last longer. we are now -- we've done the garage and the elevator. we are now moving up the second floor. we are doing the third and fourth floor. and that is done as one unit. another item, we have had jeff over to the fourth floor on the
4:59 pm
south side to that large, large patio which you have pictures of. we have had him over twice. once at the pre-application meeting for the first application which was in november of '11 and again in july of '12 when we revised the plan with the large angled setback, okay. at that time jeff told us that an acceptable plan for him -- jeff larson -- was that only build on the west half of that fourth floor patio. so we would expect we would have to take 235 foot frontage and cut it in half and only build on the webster side. we didn't think that was acceptable, okay. so, that was number one. number two is yes we have had code violations. we got a clearance report, by the way. i don't have a copy of it, but it is on file with joe [speaker not understood] with the sfdph, okay, total clearance support. we had a certified inspector come out and clear it
left
right